A NULL pointer points to memory that doesn't exist. This may be address 0x00000000 or any other implementation-defined value (as long as it can never be a real address). Dereferencing it means trying to access whatever is pointed to by the pointer. The * operator is the dereferencing operator:
int a, b, c; // some integers
int *pi; // a pointer to an integer
a = 5;
pi = &a; // pi points to a
b = *pi; // b is now 5
pi = NULL;
c = *pi; // this is a NULL pointer dereference
This is exactly the same thing as a NullReferenceException in C#, except that pointers in C can point to any data object, even elements inside an array.
A NULL pointer points to memory that doesn't exist. This may be address 0x00000000 or any other implementation-defined value (as long as it can never be a real address). Dereferencing it means trying to access whatever is pointed to by the pointer. The * operator is the dereferencing operator:
int a, b, c; // some integers
int *pi; // a pointer to an integer
a = 5;
pi = &a; // pi points to a
b = *pi; // b is now 5
pi = NULL;
c = *pi; // this is a NULL pointer dereference
This is exactly the same thing as a NullReferenceException in C#, except that pointers in C can point to any data object, even elements inside an array.
Dereferencing just means accessing the memory value at a given address. So when you have a pointer to something, to dereference the pointer means to read or write the data that the pointer points to.
In C, the unary * operator is the dereferencing operator. If x is a pointer, then *x is what x points to. The unary & operator is the address-of operator. If x is anything, then &x is the address at which x is stored in memory. The * and & operators are inverses of each other: if x is any data, and y is any pointer, then these equations are always true:
*(&x) == x
&(*y) == y
A null pointer is a pointer that does not point to any valid data (but it is not the only such pointer). The C standard says that it is undefined behavior to dereference a null pointer. This means that absolutely anything could happen: the program could crash, it could continue working silently, or it could erase your hard drive (although that's rather unlikely).
In most implementations, you will get a "segmentation fault" or "access violation" if you try to do so, which will almost always result in your program being terminated by the operating system. Here's one way a null pointer could be dereferenced:
int *x = NULL; // x is a null pointer
int y = *x; // CRASH: dereference x, trying to read it
*x = 0; // CRASH: dereference x, trying to write it
And yes, dereferencing a null pointer is pretty much exactly like a NullReferenceException in C# (or a NullPointerException in Java), except that the langauge standard is a little more helpful here. In C#, dereferencing a null reference has well-defined behavior: it always throws a NullReferenceException. There's no way that your program could continue working silently or erase your hard drive like in C (unless there's a bug in the language runtime, but again that's incredibly unlikely as well).
What happens when dereferencing a nullptr?
In C++, does dereferencing a nullptr itself cause undefined behaviour, or is it the acting upon the dereferenced pointer which is undefined? - Software Engineering Stack Exchange
You're dereferencing a null pointer!
Dereferencing a NULL pointer always segfaults, right? Not if you're clever...
I saw this code in A Tour of C++, but with a bit modify for illustration:
#include <iostream>
int main() {
char s = 'a';
char *p = &s;
while (*p) {
std::cout << *p;
p++;
}
p = nullptr;
//std::cout << (*p == true);
*p == true;
}
I do not know how does while (*p) { end while I do not know what happens when p is nullptr. And std::cout << (*p == true) will induce segment fault but *p == true does not.
It is not the compiler that causes your program to crash on dereferencing a null pointer. The problem is that the pointer is pointing to memory that it is illegal to reference, and the operating system kills your program for invalid behavior.
Trying to trick the compiler by obfuscating that it is a null pointer won't work, because it isn't the compiler that detects it.
There is no legitimate reason to dereference a null pointer unless you on a rare system that maps page zero (or you intend your program to crash). It is generally accepted that zeroing a pointer is a good way to mark it as invalid and dereferencing an invalid pointer is a bug. Modern operating systems do not give you a page of memory at that address specifically to make debugging invalid pointers easier.
I would not even call your program crashing from this to be undefined behavior. Dereferencing a pointer with random data in it would give you undefined behavior. Dereferencing a pointer that contains an address not assigned to your program is quite well defined in demand paged memory protected operating systems, and the behavior defined by the operating system is for your program to crash. From the language's perspective, it is still undefined behavior, because what happens is not defined in the scope of the language. Since this behavior is undefined by the language, the compiler can do nothing about it and should do nothing about it.
The exception to this is systems that have no memory protection and systems that intentionally map page zero. Some older systems do this, but most of the modern systems that do are microcontrollers, some of which might even have memory mapped I/O or some other special purpose memory in page zero.
Since null pointer dereferences are typically bugs, it is unlikely a compiler would bother to optimize away null pointer dereferences or put guard code around a possible one, as this would not improve code performance. If they did even bother to detect this, they would do it to emit a warning to assist you in debugging, similar to the "code not reachable" warning. The only reason for the compiler to generate different code around one would be if it knew what you were trying to do.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what Undefined Behavior means.
Undefined Behavior is not something that is "caused" by your code. It is not something that happens. It is something that is.
If you have some piece of code somewhere that dereferences a null pointer, that is Undefined Behavior. UB gives the compiler a lot of leeway.
The way this is usually phrased is that the compiler is allowed to do anything. It is allowed to compile code that dereferences a null pointer into code that formats your hard disk. It is allowed to compile it into code that crashes. It is allowed to compile it into code that does random things. It is even allowed to compile it into code that doesn't crash.
And until a couple of years ago, that's mostly what compilers did. However, that isn't even the most dangerous part.
There is one thing the compiler is also allowed to do: because you are not allowed to write code that exhibits UB, the compiler is allowed to assume that there will be no UB, when optimizing your code. And because of the complex optimizations that modern compilers do, this can have very weird consequences.
Let's say you have an if (userId == 0) statement, where you have UB in the else part. Since you are not allowed to write code that exhibits UB, the compiler is allowed to assume that the else branch will never be taken. This means that the compiler is allowed to assume that userId will always be 0, i.e. it is allowed to assume that the user is always root! And based on this assumption, it is allowed to optimize away other checks as well, opening you up to huge security holes.
This can lead to very extreme, or even worse, very subtle changes to the behavior of program parts far away from the place of the UB.